메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
이한진 (금융위원회)
저널정보
한국증권법학회 증권법연구 증권법 연구 제15권 제3호
발행연도
2014.12
수록면
89 - 207 (119page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
This paper aimed to evaluate issues resulted from the comprehensive regulatory framework on financial investment products under the Financial Investment Service and Capital Market Act (FISCMA). Specifically, it focused on the policy intent and the principles of comprehensive regulatory framework, the comprehensive legal definition of financial investment products, the distinction between securities and derivatives, and the definition of derivatives combined securities and investment contract securities with a particular emphasis on the practical application.
The policy intent of the comprehensive regulatory framework under the FISCMA was expanding the business scope of financial investment services providers while strengthening investor protection simultaneously. However, the principal limit, which governs the issuance and transfer of securities inscribed in the statutory law restricted the business scope of financial investment services providers. Further, the introduction of comprehensive regulatory framework saw a little deterioration in investor protection due to the increased level of issuances in long-term commercial paper. In addition, accomadative policy options for the ease of corporate funding were not fully addressed in the enactment of the FISCMA, which will increasingly necessitate further discussion.
Despite some criticism from the academic world, the comprehensive legal definition of financial investment products was rather well received in the government practice. However, the lack of exemptions, which were witnessed in the US, the UK, Australia, etc from certain clauses requiring interpretation and application of the comprehensive legal definition increased regulatory uncertainties and burden on both the regulators and the regulated entities.
The obligation for additional payments, which was the only criterion provided to distinguish derivatives from securities under the FISCMA, caused difficulties in the practical setting, particularly in the area of options and warrants. It was noted that the single criterion approach has been facing challenges due to the increasing demand on clear distinction between securities and derivatives as the regulatory requirements on derivatives has been heightened since the Global Financial Crisis.
Various issues raised from derivatives combined securities and investment contract securities were also considered in relation to the application of the comprehensive legal definition of securities under the FISCMA. A particular consideration was given to the issuance and sales of derivatives combined securities as separate regulations govern them with different policy intent. It was noted that investment contract securities and the likes can cause further issues when combined with crowdfunding due to the lack of transferability.
Finally, the contents and policy intent of the amendment to the FISCMA in 2013 along with the revised bills and its subordinate regulations, which aimed to clarify and supplement the comprehensive regulatory framework on financial investment products, are detailed with referece to the changes in the definition of financial investment products and in the classification criterion between securities and derivatives. Further, some issues arising from the amendments in the scope of the derivatives combined securities, investment contract securities, etc with reference to the amendment to Commercial Law in 2011 and the new legislation on crowdfunding, which is currently being discussed in the National Assembly, are also considered.

목차

【초록】
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 금융투자상품 포괄주의 정책방향
Ⅲ. 포괄적 금융투자상품의 개념과 단계적 정의방식
Ⅳ. 증권과 파생상품의 개념 구분
Ⅴ. 파생결합증권, 투자계약증권의 도입 등 증권 개념의 포괄주의
Ⅵ. 개정자본시장법 등의 주요 내용
Ⅶ. 맺음말
참고문헌
ABSTRACT

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문과 연관된 판례 (3)

  • 대법원 1990. 3. 9. 선고 89다카17809 판결

    갑이 을 주식회사의 대표이사인 경우에 그가 상대방과 체결한 1개의 약정을 갑 개인자격으로서 뿐만 아니라 을 주식회사의 대표이사자격으로서도 체결한 것이라고 당사자의 의사표시의 내용을 해석한 사례

    자세히 보기
  • 대법원 1987. 9. 29. 선고 86누484 판결

    가. 상급행정기관이 하급행정기관에 대하여 업무처리지침이나 법령의 해석적용에 관한 기준을 정하여서 발하는 이른바 행정규칙은 일반적으로 행정조직 내부에서만 효력을 가질뿐 대외적인 구속력을 갖는 것은 아니지만, 법령의 규정이 특정행정기관에게 그 법령내용의 구체적 사항을 정할 수 있는 권한을 부여하면서 그 권한행사의 절차나 방법을 특정하고 있지 아

    자세히 보기
  • 서울행정법원 2013. 8. 30. 선고 2012구합32413 판결

    甲 은행이 `자신의 고객 乙 등이 원화를 입금하면 국제 금 시세 등을 기준으로 한 거래가격에 해당하는 금을 그램(g) 단위로 기재한 골드뱅킹 통장을 교부하고 고객들이 인출을 요청할 경우 출금일의 거래가격에 해당하는 금액 또는 실물 금을 지급하는’ 골드뱅킹 거래를 하였는데, 금 시세가 상승함에 따라 고객들이 금 적립계좌에서 출금한 금액 또는 실물 금의

    자세히 보기

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-327-000946879